https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270405 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx | |) | --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- I gave this another go today, but unfortunately mock build failed, so the review is incomplete. I'll try again in F24 mock. Some preeliminary notes: > BSD and GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with exceptions and LGPLv2+ and NCSA and MIT Oh, my. Our guidelines say that a "breakdown" of licensing should be provided a comment in the spec file for compound licenses. There are only two items in %files: /usr/pnacl_newlib/ /usr/pnacl_translator/ but since the build failed for me, I don't know what exactly goes in those directories. Looking at the sources: scons → MIT breakpad → 3-clause BSD native_client → 3-clause BSD valgrind → not part of the binary package dlmalloc → PD newlib → 3-clause BSD toolchain_build → various... ... so it would seem that the binary package license does not have to be so complicated (MIT and BSD would be enough?). If you could comment a bit how you arrived at the license that would help. -- Looking at the patches, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier in the long run to keep $HOST_CLANG_PATH and to symlink $HOST_CLANG_PATH/clang → /usr/bin/gcc, $HOST_CLANG_PATH/clang++ → /usr/bin/g++… Is the .git subdirectory needed for buildling? If not, excluding it might save quite a bit of space in the tarball. Consider adding --exclude-vcs to the tarball building commands. -- + package name is OK-ish (see above) ? package license is acceptable, but maybe can be simplified + instructions how to generate source tarballs are provided + Provides tags for bundled stuff are included + no scriptlets present or necessary - package builds and installs OK + no other packaging guidelines really apply, afaict. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx